John Piper

[hayesy]

Oh, forgive me! When I said 'Thanks for welcoming me", I meant it sincerely - there was no hidden grudge against anyone who didn't!

I'm not familiar with the term "MV's"... Multiple Versions?
I'm extremely wary of anyone who switches versions depending on what they are trying to prove (Rick Warren..). But Piper is not someone who does this: his views on translations, like most things he believes, are explained on desiringgod.org - he preaches from ESV:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2004/1534_Good_English_With_Minimal_Translation_Why_Bethlehem_Uses_the_ESV/
However, he has also taught Greek and checks the translation from the Greek himself. In fact, I've heard him say in sermons "Actually, the [such and such] version renders this passage more closely because..."
So he doesn't switch versions to prove a point, but he does switch versions to make sure he is as close as possible to the original.

I'm not aware of any Scripture references commanding the use of KJV. (Tongue in cheek...)
If anyone is interested in why Piper does not preach from the KJV, he has explained it in a seminar message. I tried to find the part in the manuscript of the message, but I don't think they are complete notes. It's worth a listen - you will likely learn something about the history of the Bible... and somewhere in there he makes the case that we have now more copies of ancient manuscripts and better knowledge of the languages... so contemporary translations are certainly not worse off in that respect!

I don't wish to start a debate on versions, but unless someone can provide Biblical basis for the sole use of KJV then I cannot see how a man may be condemned as heretical for using other versions!
(ps, I've always wondered... what about translations into other languages [which surely must be done if we are to reach every nation]... are they permitted to translate directly from the Greek or must they translate from KJV?)

At any rate, I cannot find fault in a man who can read (and has taught) Greek trying to be as close to the actual text as possible.

As for your explanation, my theology is not good enough to comment on that, but it seems to me to be two sides of the same coin. How are we to be found holy and blameless at the judgment seat of Christ when I know already that I am certainly neither? Only by the blood of Christ, surely. "now hath he reconciled [Col 1:22] in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable"
It seems to me that we are reconciled so that, having been justified, we might be found holy and blameless before him... and so enter his presence. And this will happen "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

I freely admit that I could be well off the mark there and entirely confused! However, the other verses Piper quoted seem to be more explicitely related to salvation:

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain

. 1 Corinthians 15:1,2

[Note: I don't necessarily agree or disagree with John... I don't feel I have studied it enough to form a fair opinion.]

[kevinmiller]

Well, I haven't had much experience with him outside of having several friends that read his books. Just what I have been reading on his website since this discussion has started has indicated to me that he is very passionate about his faith. Unfortunately, it seems Calvinists are often more passionate than us "free-will'ers" are, and I appreciate that. Like I said, I don't agree with all of his theology(ie. I'm not Calvinist and I don't use any modern versions) but I do like some of the stuff that I have read.

[Jerry]

However' date=' he has also taught Greek and checks the translation from the Greek himself. In fact, I've heard him say in sermons "Actually, the [such and such'] version renders this passage more closely because..."
So he doesn't switch versions to prove a point, but he does switch versions to make sure he is as close as possible to the original...

At any rate, I cannot find fault in a man who can read (and has taught) Greek trying to be as close to the actual text as possible.

Which original? The Greek and Hebrew Text he is using are not the same preserved texts that the KJV is translated from.

[Jerry]

2 Timothy 2:11, 12 "The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him..."

Mark 13:13, "But he who endures to the end will be saved.**"

Neither of these verses teach "the perseverance of the saints" in any sense - especially in regards to being saved in the first place.

The first reference is to the faithful believer being rewarded.

The second is to saved tribulation believers being physically delivered at the end of the tribulation when Christ returns (rather than being killed during those years).

**Saved from what? Not from sins or Hell - but from death and martyrdom. Context is very important when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

[hayesy]

Which original? The Greek and Hebrew Text he is using are not the same preserved texts that the KJV is translated from.

Have the texts the KJV was translated from disappeared? I dare say that he would not be preaching from a greek text that he thought was not the best one available...
I must say I don't know anywhere near enough about this!

Edit: In the seminar I linked to above, Piper seemed to think the greek texts we have today are... better ... than those used in older translations. (Owing to a greater number of manuscripts available, better hermeneutics for reconstructing the original)

Now I'm not sure how that fits in with the doctrine of preservation (in fact, I'm a little hazy on the doctrine!), but if the historical evidence is greater for one rendering (in greek) of a text, it tells me that at the very least there was a broad period (in both space and time) in which that text was dominant. Was the word of God preserved for those living and using those manuscripts?
It seems to me that we are forced to admit that there have been periods in history where a preserved scripture was not dominant. Is the current situation one of these periods, where the preserved scripture is not dominant, or is it one in which the preserved scripture has just regained dominance - in the form of improved manuscripts and modern translations?

Sorry! I don't mean to turn this into a debate about versions.

To summarise what I think about Piper's use of MV's:
Whatever he does, he does it out of a deep love for the scriptures, a profound devotion to their correct interpretation, and a burning desire to see, and to help others see, the glory of God most clearly through His word. If he uses other translations or refers to the greek, its is only because he desires to be as true to the Bible as possible. And to be sure, I've never heard such faithful treatment (perhaps Dr MacArthur), using the utmost care and never implying a degree of certainty in his interpretation greater than that which he feels is warrented.
I hope the God of the universe would be pleased to bless his efforts, whatever translation he used. I certainly believe God is powerful enough to do so.
[i'm not in any way suggesting that sincerity is a proper substitute for truth, but if one directs their sincerity at God's word it seems almost inevitable that one would land upon the truth.]

[Bro.Johnny Mac]

If I am forgiven plaese let me know guys,I would like to come back the forum if you guys(those who I offended) will have me back.

I will understand if you dont,if my actions have warn out my welcome,I understand.

[dwayner79]

hayesy,

There is a ton of information on this site about the MV (Modern Versions, btw) vs KJV debate. Make no mistake though, this site is very one sided. It is a KJVo board. Not all members are KJVo (I am not) but it you truly want to seek out the topic, you will need to get info from a variety of sources. There is a wealth of information that is Pro-KJVo here.

You can find the "other side" from sermons like Piper's and books like "The King James Only Controversy" by James White.

@Johnney Mac,
I have no clue what you did, Bro, but this is a forgiving community. Thanks for the humility. Blessings.

[DaveW]

Just because someone knows enough Greek to impress doesn't make them doctrinally correct.

Often in fact people use this sort of "talent" to lend weight to arguments that are not correct.

Piper does not teach heresy in everything, but then again neither do the Catholics - the trick is in figuring out where they are wrong.
Some things are easy to spot, some are not, and not all are harmless.

I can tell you that I have listened to around 20 messages of his that were specifically recommended to me, and there were probably only around 5 that I had no real concerns with, and there were thigns about even most of them that I thought "Hmmmm" about but couldn't quite place it.

Add to this three books and a few excerpts that had again been either bought for me or recommended to me, all of which I have issues with and in my opinion there is far too much danger in his general teachings to warrant taking a risk on.

This is my opinion only of course and you can do with it as you please, but I do not make these statements out of ignorance.

[okjac80]

First off, I don't know anything at all about this guy, I have never heard of him. However, wouldn't it be better to ask a Calvinist what they believe instead of heresay? It might make better sense if a person who believed in Calvinism could explain it. Some many books and such that are anti Calvinism ar greatly distorted




BTW, I went to a college that was KJV only and I have never understood that. The KJV was once the "new and modern" version, wasn't it?

I read both the NKJV and the NIV. My kids read the early readers edition of the NIV. My husband ONLY reads the NIV.......

[heartstrings]

First off, I don't know anything at all about this guy, I have never heard of him. However, wouldn't it be better to ask a Calvinist what they believe instead of heresay? It might make better sense if a person who believed in Calvinism could explain it. Some many books and such that are anti Calvinism ar greatly distorted




BTW, I went to a college that was KJV only and I have never understood that. The KJV was once the "new and modern" version, wasn't it?

I read both the NKJV and the NIV. My kids read the early readers edition of the NIV. My husband ONLY reads the NIV.......

Hi oKJc80,
This is where John Piper and his organisation outline what they believe about "The Five Points of Calvinism"
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... Calvinism/

This is how it is presented on the Wikipedia site, which includes the "preservation of the saints" section as earlier quoted by "zealyouthguy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism

[okjac80]

Hi oKJc80,
This is where John Piper and his organisation outline what they believe about "The Five Points of Calvinism"
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... Calvinism/

yes, I know the 5 points of Calvinism, I AM a Calvinist. I just get tired of people talking about what we believe and non Calvinists trying to explain Calvinism. Heck, it is hard for a Calvinist to explain Calvinism, much less a non Calvinist...LOL

[brother_mike]

First off' date=' I don't know anything at all about this guy, I have never heard of him. However, wouldn't it be better to ask a Calvinist what they believe instead of heresay? It might make better sense if a person who believed in Calvinism could explain it. Some many books and such that are anti Calvinism ar greatly distorted[/quote']

He does a fine job on his web site explaining himself.

[okjac80]

What do you not understand? The college using ONLY the KJV, or the KJV?

I don't understand the view of only KJV. Like I said, it was once the "new modern" veresion that was written in the language of the day, so why try to "ban" other versions. KWIM?

[MilkmanDan]

I don't understand the view of only KJV. Like I said, it was once the "new modern" veresion that was written in the language of the day, so why try to "ban" other versions. KWIM?

http://www.onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2512

Not to beat a dead horse. :Green

[okjac80]

http://www.onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2512

Not to beat a dead horse. :Green

my bad, I guess I didn't read that. Didn't mean anything by it. I see that is the site's view, sorry for stirring the pot. To each his own in that matter. I just happen to like the NIV! LOL